Why is this game not Free To Play

[Thysios]

I'm sure it's been said already, but Savage is really not a big enough game/series to support this business model. This game has had bartely any marketting from what I've seen and I never see anyone talking about it.

The only reason I've even paid attention to it is because I tried out Savage 2 a while ago and used to play HoN so I know who S2 Games are.

I'm not going to buy a game that has such a small playerbase but would be more than willing to try it out it if was Free to Play. They already appear to have microtransactions in the game and they've got a successful Free To Play model wit HoN so I don't see why they can't do the same thnig here.

/rant.

[Robbo]

Because it won't help, game has to be good. And it will be flooded with hackers. F2P easiest way to make sure the game never has a chance.

[Djinghis]

Crying beggers have computers now?

[ruffeeh]

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Crying beggers have computers now?

Mad virgins insist they should belong to a l33t club because they got their mommy to give them $20 now?
Oh wait, that's always been the case.

[Djinghis]

Originally posted by Lyanna Mormont's Prurient Snatch:

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Crying beggers have computers now?

Mad virgins insist they should belong to a l33t club because they got their mommy to give them $20 now?
Oh wait, that's always been the case.

I'm 35 and own 2 houses, $20 is piss and you're a guttersnipe - get a job.

[ruffeeh]

Whatever you may own is preceded by your repute -- that of a mental infant, you unwashed, three-inch fool.

[Thysios]

Originally posted by Robbo:

Because it won't help, game has to be good. And it will be flooded with hackers. F2P easiest way to make sure the game never has a chance.

Despite the fact that several games have saved their playerbase by going Free to Play?

Hackers have nothing to do with being F2P or not. Besides, what's the alternative? Having no players? The game only just came out and it's almost dead.

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Crying beggers have computers now?

Assuming this is directed at me. I'm a begger because I want the game to have a playerbase? Which won't happen with its current business model. I'm not buying a game, no matter how cheap if it doesn't have the players to support it.

Three of your top four most played games are Free to Play...

[Djinghis]

Originally posted by Thysios:

Originally posted by Robbo:

Because it won't help, game has to be good. And it will be flooded with hackers. F2P easiest way to make sure the game never has a chance.

Despite the fact that several games have saved their playerbase by going Free to Play?

Hackers have nothing to do with being F2P or not. Besides, what's the alternative? Having no players? The game only just came out and it's almost dead.

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Crying beggers have computers now?

Assuming this is directed at me. I'm a begger because I want the game to have a playerbase? Which won't happen with its current business model. I'm not buying a game, no matter how cheap if it doesn't have the players to support it.

Three of your top four most played games are Free to Play...

Many thousands bought this game (non beggers) and they don't play it at all anymore, what makes you think (beggers/freeloaders) are going to act differently or like it any more than (non beggers/ non freeloaders)?

You're suggesting S2 do something about playerbase < lol.
You're not going to buy a game unless is's free to play < lol.
You're not buying/playing a game that has no playerbase < lol < sheep much?
You don't see a relationship with hackers an free software < lol.
The top 3/4 F2P games are actually good - Sav Res is still beta quality, and some of them started P2P < lol

I hope one day you see the fallacy of your comments.

[Thysios]

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Originally posted by Thysios:

Many thousands bought this game (non beggers) and they don't play it at all anymore, what makes you think (beggers/freeloaders) are going to act differently or like it any more than (non beggers/ non freeloaders)?

You're suggesting S2 do something about playerbase < lol.
You're not going to buy a game unless is's free to play < lol.
You're not buying/playing a game that has no playerbase < lol < sheep much?
You don't see a relationship with hackers an free software < lol.
The top 3/4 F2P games are actually good - Sav Res is still beta quality, and some of them started P2P < lol

I hope one day you see the fallacy of your comments.

Many thousands also bought Evolve. Yet it got a boost in players when it went Free to Play. I'll try explain it in a way you can understand, but that might be a stretch.

If a multiplayer only game doesn't have people playing it there is no point buying the game. If 1 person buys the game and see's no one is playing it. He'll have no one to play with (I hope this isn't too complex for you to understand). So why would player A buy a game that he literally can not play, due to no one else playing it.

Now, when a game is free it means people will be more willing to try it out. Because they can do so without spending money and risk wasting it on a dead game.

To point out the obvious example with Evolve again. This game had a concurrent playerbase of 157 the day before going free to play and 32,000 the day it went free to play. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, more people are playing the game after it went free. WHO THE ♥♥♥♥ SAW THAT COMING?!?!!? Oh wait, everyone...

Team Fortress 2 (while already a popular game) got a massive increase in players after it's transition to Free to Play. Quite a few MMO's have followed the same route after they failed to maintain a P2P business model. So yes, I do think it would make a difference. More of a difference than leaving the game in it's current state would do.

"You're not going to buy a game unless is's free to play < lol.'

More like, I'm not going to buy a game that doesn't have a playerbase. Why waste money on a game I literally can't play, because there is no one to play it with. Free to Play means I can try it out without wasting money. Along with a lot of other people. If you look at my Steam library you'll see I have no issue spending money on games. That doesn't mean buying this game isn't going to be a waste of money in it's current state.

"You're not buying/playing a game that has no playerbase < lol < sheep much?"

Are you serious with this comment? I'm starting to think you're a troll at this point. But to spell it out for you, incase you're just brain dead. No, I am not going to spend moeny on a multipalyer only game that doesn't have other people playing because that would be literally impossible to play. In case you didn't know this, but multipalyer games need other peopel to play with. And the point of this thread was to point out the game has no players, and could probably gain a few if they changed their business model. Understand now? Good.

"You don't see a relationship with hackers an free software < lol.'

So your alternative is to let the game die? I haven't seen any hackers in my thousands of hours in Dota 2. I've never heard hacking being a major issue for LoL. By your logic the game should stay small because it means less hackers. Of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ course more players will mean more of them are hackers, that's basic % at work. But if you really think the game is better off with it's 25 players then having a potential auidience that's great for you.

"The top 3/4 F2P games are actually good - Sav Res is still beta quality, and some of them started P2P"

You mean the same way Savage has started Pay to Play and should transition to Free to Play? Like several of those games? Cause that's exactly what I think they should do.

Being good is subjective and any gameplay issues can easily be improved with patches. That's not going to fix a dead playerbase though.

[Djinghis]

NP, I'm not reading it begger ) go write a book about how the world should be Free to Live.

[Thysios]

Originally posted by Djinghis:

NP, I'm not reading it begger ) go write a book about how the world should be Free to Live.

Ah, solid argument indeed! I concede to you.

[GordnBenit]

Well @Djinghis I hope you enjoy this "begger" (oh and btw it's spelt BEGGAR) free game, sitting dusty in your library when next to no one is playing it, down the line.

Has it occurred to you that maybe it's better for the game to go F2P so you can actually play it against people? Sounds to me like you were the kid in pre-school that hogged all the toys, and had no one to play them with.

[Flackzer]

GO play RenegadeX than , practically the same concept but its free

[Djinghis]

Originally posted by GordnBenit:

Well @Djinghis I hope you enjoy this "begger" (oh and btw it's spelt BEGGAR) free game, sitting dusty in your library when next to no one is playing it, down the line.

Has it occurred to you that maybe it's better for the game to go F2P so you can actually play it against people? Sounds to me like you were the kid in pre-school that hogged all the toys, and had no one to play them with.

Thanks for the spell check,

I should point out that you missed the point entirely. Sounds to me like you were not even the kid that put the squares in the circle holes but you tried to eat the whole apparatus.

(oh and BTW it's beggar (no caps) and also it's preschool (no em dash)). But you already knew that, because you're a literary genius who's too good to pay 20 bucks for a product.

[Thysios]

Originally posted by Djinghis:

Originally posted by GordnBenit:

Well @Djinghis I hope you enjoy this "begger" (oh and btw it's spelt BEGGAR) free game, sitting dusty in your library when next to no one is playing it, down the line.

Has it occurred to you that maybe it's better for the game to go F2P so you can actually play it against people? Sounds to me like you were the kid in pre-school that hogged all the toys, and had no one to play them with.

Thanks for the spell check,

I should point out that you missed the point entirely. Sounds to me like you were not even the kid that put the squares in the circle holes but you tried to eat the whole apparatus.

(oh and BTW it's beggar (no caps) and also it's preschool (no em dash)). But you already knew that, because you're a literary genius who's too good to pay 20 bucks for a product.

You seem to be missing the point entirely when you point out people are too good, or too poor to buy the game. Do you not realise the price isn't the issue, or even the point of the whole thread?

No one is saying they can't monotise the game. No one is saying they don't want to spend money on the game at all, or that they expect everything to be given to them for free. I suggest you look up how a free to play business model actually works before assuming people just want free ♥♥♥♥.

[Djinghis]

Yeah - this game is not set up well for that business model and I'm telling you that, not for debate - so don't argue. The crate system is not working and it will never work until fundamental core issues with the game are resolved - THAT'S WHY THE GAME IS DEAD. 65 thousand sales and 9 people are playing ATM, you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tell me I'm wrong I ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dare you. What makes you think non paying are going to play this game more than paying customers anyway.

You refuse to pay for the game - therefore it is a fair assumption that you won't contribute to Micro transaction as well. You are a freeloader and a beggar, who can't accept being wrong and cheap, but that being your nature - you will constantly come onto this "public" forum and avoid making a valid point by nit picking anyone who disagrees.
I'm starting to see validity in another point about an upfront cost, like nightclubs etc, if keeps out the riff raff. It seems that you don't really want to play this game at all, instead you just want to argue for how many days/ weeks now - hours that could've been better spent. I don't go into stores and argue about the sellers business model - that's retarded, and you're starting to sound that way. If only a bouncer was around to throw you out on your cheap arse.

On any of the points you've made, almost all of them being poor comparisons and a lot being completly wrong such as...

Originally posted by Thysios:

No, I am not going to spend moeny on a multipalyer only game that doesn't have other people playing because that would be literally impossible to play

It's not literally impossible at all, there are bots and even bot commanders, and in that section of your way too long trolling post - you had the audacity to call me braindead when you don't have basic facts.

Originally posted by Thysios:

So your alternative is to let the game die? I haven't seen any hackers in my thousands of hours in Dota 2. I've never heard hacking being a major issue for LoL.

Dota and Lol are not Savage Resurection, and FYI - there have been several reported hackers in the game owners forum, more evidence of an unstable game foundation not ready for full release, you can download the aim and wall hack too, I'm sure F2P won't attract those people though will it.

Originally posted by Thysios:

You mean the same way Savage has started Pay to Play and should transition to Free to Play? Like several of those games? Cause that's exactly what I think they should do.

Being good is subjective and any gameplay issues can easily be improved with patches. That's not going to fix a dead playerbase though.

Savage 1 was abbandoned and the community took over, it have no micro transactions and S2 recieves zero profits from that game, Savage 1 does not fit into this argument at all. I can't speak for Savage 2 but I think if fell among the same lines. And Savage 1 gets 50 players at most on European nights mostly weekends, it's virually dead. The servers that run Savage 1 are from the pockets of the dedicated fans, its a money pit in essence.

If you really want to be S2 marketer/accountant, have you tried e-mailing them or even looked for that available position?. Seems your anonymous unqualified free advice has not gotten the attention of any reputable people from S2, perhaps you need to argue some more with your paper thin case.